Talk:Richard III of England
I believe Richard's was the first government in the modern era to guarantee the right to trial by jury for accused criminals. If I'm confused, it's because he was the founder of some other civil liberty. Some tyrant. Turtle Fan 23:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC) :He did create a Council of the North, which was an agency designed to govern Northern England. It did a good job, even bringing prosperity to the region. :I don't think he established any particular civil liberty, though, none that I could find. Trial by jury, while inconsistently used, does go back to 1066. And since he was on the throne for two years, and was there under dubious circumstances at best, he really didn't have the time to extend civil liberties. TR 01:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC) ::I'll have to look it up later. Turtle Fan 01:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC) :::It's been a while since I actually read any historical pieces about Richard. I never stopped to think about it before, but if not for the fact that Shakespeare wrote the play, I don't think history would have given too much of a damn about Richard. :::Well, I guess there was that whole "who killed the little princes of the Tower" mystery. TR 01:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC) ::::Shakespeare was far from the only Tudor writer to take a crack at Richard. Most of the hatchet jobs died in obscurity, but Thomas More's has also survived. It's nowhere near as compelling as Shakespeare's. ::::Actually I always thought Shakespeare made Richard look pretty sympathetic. "And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover/To entertain these fair, well-spoken days/I am determined to prove a villain/And hate the idle pleasures of these days!" Sounds good to me--He was treated so badly by the other Yorkists, and after all he'd done for them. At least in Shakespeare's version. Turtle Fan 16:18, September 22, 2009 (UTC) Henry VI of England succeeded by Edward IV of England succeeded by Edward V of England succeeded by Richard III of England succeeded by Henry VII of England succeeded by Henry VIII of England succeeded by Edward VI of England succeeded by Mary I of England (fuck Lady Jane Grey, she was useless) succeeded by Elizabeth I of England succeeded by James I of England succeeded by Charles I of England succeeded by Charles II of England. We've got just three gaps in over two centuries of monarchical history. A shame HT won't give us an excuse to fill in those last three, it would be cool to be able to whip through the decades by clicking links in succession boxes. Turtle Fan 16:14, September 22, 2009 (UTC) Deletion I can go either way here. On the one hand, Richard is still vilified even though Spain is running England. On the other hand, I think that info might be more useful in the play's page. TR (talk) 19:40, September 17, 2016 (UTC) :Probably the play's page is enough. Richard's page basically says his image was the same as in OTL.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 07:31, September 18, 2016 (UTC) :I vote for deletion. (I'm also curious as to why the Hapsburg party line is that he was so bad, too; you'd think rehabilitating him would give them a chance to shit on the Tudors, even if Bosworth was pre-Reformation.) Turtle Fan (talk) 07:40, September 18, 2016 (UTC) ::Rehabilitating the memory of a strong independent English warrior-king wasn't conducive to their interests.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 07:46, September 18, 2016 (UTC) :::It is if you want to show how wicked and illegitimate the Tudors are. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:53, September 19, 2016 (UTC) ::::Philip was married to a good Catholic Tudor. Even in the world of absolute monarchism where hypocrisy abounds, whining about the Tudors may have been a bridge too far under the circumstances. Moreover, per HT's author's note, Philip the House of Lancaster in his family tree, which is how he planned to put Isabella on the English throne (I can't find the connection, but it's early and I'm busy). So extolling the virtues of the Yorks at the expense of the Lancasters would also be problematic. TR (talk) 14:20, September 19, 2016 (UTC) :::::^This.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 20:32, September 19, 2016 (UTC) :::::I've read Philip wasn't too fond of Mary; there's even an account of his complaining to a drinking buddy that an unpleasant stench wafted from her vagina. (I came across that in some article or other arguing that Henry had some sort of genetic defect which he passed along to his children, leaving his sons too sickly to live to adulthood and his daughters infertile.) When Lord Westmoreland's Men are putting together a costume for Boudicca that will make people think of Elizabeth, Shakespeare tells whomever he's put in charge of that to say it's actually for Mary, as she has "a small part in the play Philip." They then share a chuckle about how this is as it should be, for she had a small part in his life too. :::::I'm sure it could be argued that Trastamara blood was what saved Mary from succumbing to the Tudor wickedness, especially since medieval Spaniards seemed to be alarmingly comfortable with reminders that their rulers were incestuous. :::::The Lancastrian claim, on the other hand . . . Yeah, that makes sense. I had uncovered the connection once, by the way, years and years ago, but now I forget what it was. Turtle Fan (talk) 02:05, September 20, 2016 (UTC) Coup categories He wasn't ousted by a coup. It was a rebellion. The whole of the York house was swept from power. His ascent may be reasonably called a coup, since it involved Richard and his supporters quietly stripping away Edward V's right to the throne. TR (talk) 18:18, January 28, 2017 (UTC)